Appendix 5-1
New York State Partnership Models

During the summer of 2003, representatives from four partnerships were brought together for a seminar at Syracuse University with support from the New York State Education Department, Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID) and the New York Higher Education Support Center for SystemsChange. The purpose of the seminar was learning about the nature of these IHE-school partnerships. When queried about the benefits and challenges of school-IHE partnerships, the responses were similar across the diversity of partnerships. A table containing responses follows. The information gleaned from the group is sub-divided into columns of benefits and issues, as they may be experienced by schools, IHEs and students.  

Seminar Participant Names and Affiliations 

Representing SUNY Fredonia and Dunkirk School District:


Bethany Maheady, Dunkirk

Jean Michielli Pendl, Dunkirk

Linda Prechtl, Dunkirk

Kathleen Gradel, SUNY Fredonia

Kathleen Magiera, SUNY Fredonia

Larry Maheady, SUNY Fredonia


Representing the Midwest Regional Task Force Institutions of Higher Education and Keshequa School District:


Ann Warren, Keshequa

Howard Warren, Keshequa


Representing the New York Institute of Technology and Central Islip School District:


Dolores Burton, NYIT

Silva Scotty, Central Islip

Rochelle Varga, Central Islip

Catherine Vorzello, Central Islip

Kevin Miller, Central Islip


Representing Brooklyn College/ NYC District 19:


David Fuys, Brooklyn College

Shaheed Rasul, Brooklyn College

Irene Meyervich, District 19 


Table 1: Benefits of New York State Sponsored IHE-School Partnerships 





§       Access to faculty expertise

§       Direct recruitment source for new teachers

§       Fresh viewpoints

§       Faculty input not as affected by internal school politics

§       Enthusiastic pre-service teachers

§       Youthful perspectives

§       Professional development

§       A shared commitment to school improvement

§       Faculty turnover

§       Trust must be established

§       Loss of funding

§       Need for sustainability

§       Proximity

§       Supervision of field placements

§       Additional management issues

§       Scheduling logistics

§       Leadership skills needed to build consensus, promote decision making

§       IHE personnel out of touch with school practices and requirements


§       Real-world connection

§       Gives faculty access to the school environment

§       Material for publishing

§       Exposure to diverse student body

§       Pre-service teacher interaction with administration

§       Pre-service teacher interaction with mentor teachers

§       Exposure to regulatory confines and external expectations

§       Interaction with families

§       Schools hire graduates

§       Theory to practice

§       An opportunity to engage future teachers in the process of school improvement

§       Loss of funding

§       Need for sustainability

§       IHE lack of value for faculty service

§       Location

§       Credibility

§       Additional management issues

§       Scheduling logistics

§       Leadership skills needed to build consensus, promote decision making

§       Internal school politics

§       Outdated school practices


§       More contact hours

§       Multiple opportunities for interaction/relationships with adults

§       Exposure to the newest teaching strategies and practices

§       More positive attention

§       More individualized instruction

§       Greater access to evidence-based teaching methods

§       Closer in age to pre-service teachers

§       Additional attention may be embarrassing

§       When the collaboration/placement ends, students may feel abandoned

§       Confused by different styles or approaches to instruction

§       Confused by different management styles

Table 1 created by M. Price (2003), based on responses from representatives from four IHE-School Partnerships in New York State.

The effect on students as identified by these teams resulted in the identification of substantially different responses. Students are not collaborators in the same fashion that school-IHE educators are. Students, as recipient of services, often experience school-IHE partnerships from an observer’s vantage point. Many of the benefits and issues identified with regard to students seem to relate directly to the developmental level of the students. 

In examining the responses, certain patterns seem to emerge with regard to the benefits and issues encountered by educators.